NBA Continued - Conference, Finals, and Beyond

[Jaime L]

So here's what I don't get about the lottery: why are the Bucks guaranteed to pick 4th or higher? Same way the obviously tanking Sixers are guaranteed to pick fifth or higher? Everyone knows the Bucks have a 25% of the first pick (the Sixers have a 20% chance at it). The lottery is then applied to picks #2 and #3. But what's less known is that outside of the top 3, the picks go exactly in order of finish.

This is an incredibly loaded draft - top 5 picks are all gold. So the Sixers, by tanking, guaranteed themselves a stud. But why should they get any guarantee? I'm fine with giving them a higher chance at getting each pick, but really feel like the lottery should extend through pick 14, not just pick 3.

Why should the Suns who played their asses off and missed the playoffs in the loaded West only have a miniscule shot at picks 1-3 and 0% chance for picks 4-13? Just doesn't seem logical and the perverse incentives are still there.

[sperry]

Yeah the game was close until about halfway through the 4th when the Spurs really blew the doors off it. During most of that run they were getting layups from ridiculously stupid passes by the Thunder, as well as having matchups like Reggie Jackson guarding Boris Diaw, or Caron Butler on Tim Duncan.

The Thunder need to figure out a better lineup. I think that involves Westbrook, Durant, Jackson, Perry Jones, and Adams/Perkins. We'll see where Brooks goes, but it's clear that the small ball gambit just isn't going to work.

[sperry]

So here's what I don't get about the lottery: why are the Bucks guaranteed to pick 4th or higher? Same way the obviously tanking Sixers are guaranteed to pick fifth or higher? Everyone knows the Bucks have a 25% of the first pick (the Sixers have a 20% chance at it). The lottery is then applied to picks #2 and #3. But what's less known is that outside of the top 3, the picks go exactly in order of finish.

This is an incredibly loaded draft - top 5 picks are all gold. So the Sixers, by tanking, guaranteed themselves a stud. But why should they get any guarantee? I'm fine with giving them a higher chance at getting each pick, but really feel like the lottery should extend through pick 14, not just pick 3.

Why should the Suns who played their asses off and missed the playoffs in the loaded West only have a miniscule shot at picks 1-3 and 0% chance for picks 4-13? Just doesn't seem logical and the perverse incentives are still there.

I think it's mainly that they want the worst team in the league to end up with very high draft picks, but they also don't want a team to be able to tank purposely and snag the best player in the draft 2 years in a row. So, they don't want the worst team picking at 10, where they're unlikely to get a difference maker. But they also don't want you to be able to tank and snag Derrick Rose and Blake Griffin, or LeBron James and Dwight Howard in back to back years.

[Jabronius Maximus]

So here's what I don't get about the lottery: why are the Bucks guaranteed to pick 4th or higher? Same way the obviously tanking Sixers are guaranteed to pick fifth or higher? Everyone knows the Bucks have a 25% of the first pick (the Sixers have a 20% chance at it). The lottery is then applied to picks #2 and #3. But what's less known is that outside of the top 3, the picks go exactly in order of finish.

This is an incredibly loaded draft - top 5 picks are all gold. So the Sixers, by tanking, guaranteed themselves a stud. But why should they get any guarantee? I'm fine with giving them a higher chance at getting each pick, but really feel like the lottery should extend through pick 14, not just pick 3.

Why should the Suns who played their asses off and missed the playoffs in the loaded West only have a miniscule shot at picks 1-3 and 0% chance for picks 4-13? Just doesn't seem logical and the perverse incentives are still there.

So here's what I don't get. Who are you and what have you done with Alexis?

[Jaime L]

So here's what I don't get. Who are you and what have you done with Alexis?

“Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself. ” -- Nietzsche.

Eh, fuck it. I got assigned Germany for the World Cup. Alexis is taking five for this one.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself. -- Nietzsche.

Eh, fuck it. I got assigned Germany for the World Cup. Alexis is taking five for this one.

Ah, women. They make something higher and lower...whatever screw it, can't remember back to philosophy class. I'm awaiting assignment myself at the moment (fingers crossed for France).

[Sir Thursday]

So here's what I don't get about the lottery: why are the Bucks guaranteed to pick 4th or higher? Same way the obviously tanking Sixers are guaranteed to pick fifth or higher? Everyone knows the Bucks have a 25% of the first pick (the Sixers have a 20% chance at it). The lottery is then applied to picks #2 and #3. But what's less known is that outside of the top 3, the picks go exactly in order of finish.

This is an incredibly loaded draft - top 5 picks are all gold. So the Sixers, by tanking, guaranteed themselves a stud. But why should they get any guarantee? I'm fine with giving them a higher chance at getting each pick, but really feel like the lottery should extend through pick 14, not just pick 3.

Why should the Suns who played their asses off and missed the playoffs in the loaded West only have a miniscule shot at picks 1-3 and 0% chance for picks 4-13? Just doesn't seem logical and the perverse incentives are still there.

I think it's primarily because of the huge drop off in talent after the first few picks in most drafts. In most drafts, the 4th pick is not guaranteed to give you a franchise changing player. It just happens that this one is loaded (and even then it's not a sure thing that these prospects will cut the mustard) which makes it feel like the Bucks have come up with a winner whatever happens.

ST

[Rhom]

Well, its better than in the NFL isn't it? Where tanking absolutely gets you Andrew Luck and spending one year as a loser nets you the next decade and a half as a contender?

[Jaime L]

Ah, women. They make something higher and lower...whatever screw it, can't remember back to philosophy class. I'm awaiting assignment myself at the moment (fingers crossed for France).

Ah, women. They make the highs, higher and the lows more frequent.

But well done! I almost used that quote in response to your initial post. :P

I think it's primarily because of the huge drop off in talent after the first few picks in most drafts. In most drafts, the 4th pick is not guaranteed to give you a franchise changing player. It just happens that this one is loaded (and even then it's not a sure thing that these prospects will cut the mustard) which makes it feel like the Bucks have come up with a winner whatever happens.

ST

Mostly true, but you'd be surprised how many impact guys are drafted #4-10 over the years. Russell Westbrook, Steph Curry, Kevin Love, Joakim Noah, Damian Lillard, Andre Drummond. Paul George, DeMarcus Cousins etc. etc.

Guaranteeing first crack at these type of players is a helluva consolation prize. I'd just like to see the Suns have a chance at these guys rather than guaranteeing that they'll probably end up on the Sixers, Bucks or Magic.

[Jaime L]

Well, its better than in the NFL isn't it? Where tanking absolutely gets you Andrew Luck and spending one year as a loser nets you the next decade and a half as a contender?

I'd be in favor of an NFL lottery too. Though tanking seems more egregious in the NBA (in large part because the regular season is so much longer).

[Rhom]

I'd be in favor of an NFL lottery too. Though tanking seems more egregious in the NBA (in large part because the regular season is so much longer).

But conversely, isn't it easier to do in the NFL? Don't rush your QB back from that injury and you can lose a quarter of the season just like that.

[sperry]

Tanking in the NFL is much less worthwhile. There are great players to be had throughout the first round. Every once in a while you'll get an Andrew Luck, but for the most part great players can be found throughout the first half of the first round. So there isn't really any incentive at all to be incredibly terrible, whereas in the NBA you are really screwing yourself if you are finishing around .500 every year.

[KalibakCruel]

Yeah basically the NFL has talent in every round. In the NBA you'd be lucky to get a great player outside of the lottery.

The NBA draft is horrible to begin with, and you can see it in the lack of parity the NBA is known for. A bad team had no guarantee of a good player. Case in point, when Miami had the worst record, they wanted Derrick Rose, instead Chicago despite not needing the pick as badly, got him, and Miami ended up with the perpetually disappointing Beasley.

[Sir Thursday]

Yeah basically the NFL has talent in every round. In the NBA you'd be lucky to get a great player outside of the lottery.

The NBA draft is horrible to begin with, and you can see it in the lack of parity the NBA is known for. A bad team had no guarantee of a good player. Case in point, when Miami had the worst record, they wanted Derrick Rose, instead Chicago despite not needing the pick as badly, got him, and Miami ended up with the perpetually disappointing Beasley.

Well that's Miami's fault though. They could have had Russell Westbrook or Kevin Love with their #2 pick (Brook Lopez and Roy Hibbert were in that draft too, you know!), but they got it wrong. It's not just that there are few game changing players available in the draft (often there are more than you think), it's that it's hard to spot who those players are going to be before a couple of seasons go by.

ST

[KalibakCruel]

Well that's Miami's fault though. They could have had Russell Westbrook or Kevin Love with their #2 pick (Brook Lopez and Roy Hibbert were in that draft too, you know!), but they got it wrong. It's not just that there are few game changing players available in the draft (often there are more than you think), it's that it's hard to spot who those players are going to be before a couple of seasons go by.

ST

No-one besides Rose was a sure thing in that draft. Hibbert was selected 17th for a reason, he sucks. But I'm glad we didn't get Love, guy can't even spell defense.

Either way it's the NBAs fault for having such a bad system. I mean there's a reason only 8 teams have won the nba title since the 80s. Nba parity is a joke in part because their draft is a joke.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Wow. Cavs got it again. I'm not complaining but maybe the fix really is in.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Whoah I'm having a bit of deja vu here. So Wiggins will put up some good years in Cleveland and leave?

I hope not. They can have something special there.

[Sir Thursday]

No-one besides Rose was a sure thing in that draft. Hibbert was selected 17th for a reason, he sucks. But I'm glad we didn't get Love, guy can't even spell defense.

Either way it's the NBAs fault for having such a bad system. I mean there's a reason only 8 teams have won the nba title since the 80s. Nba parity is a joke in part because their draft is a joke.

IIRC Beasley was first on some draft boards - no? In any case, other players did become stars and Miami could have taken them instead, so they have no-one to blame for their failure in that draft except themselves. Either they should have chosen someone else, or they should have done a better job of developing Beasley (eg. kept him off the weed :P).

I'm not quite sure how you would propose the NBA could fix the fact that there aren't very many transcendent talents in any given draft class. That's beyond their control, and it doesn't matter what system you have, you're always going to have some teams get the future superstar and others miss out. At the end of the day it comes down to talent evaluation and development more than the draft itself - your front office has to pick out the right player and put him in a position to succeed. That's why some teams escape the quagmire at the bottom of the standings quickly (Oklahoma City, for example) and others languish there for years despite multiple high draft picks (paging the Sacramento Kings). One was managed well, the other poorly, and look where they've ended up.

At the end of the day, the parity issues of the NBA are mostly caused by disparities in management ability and the scarcity of superstars. I'm no advocate for the current system (IMO there are several major improvements they could make that would fix some of the broken incentives it creates), but placing the majority of the blame on the draft process itself seems foolish.

ST

[KalibakCruel]

Ha just as I'm talking about how horrible the NBA draft is, the CAVS get the #1 pick AGAIN despite not being a top 5 team that NEEDED it.

[David Selig]

Damn, my Magic couldn't get into the Top 3.

Oh, well, we have had plenty of lottery luck before, and this year's draft is supposed to be strong enough that the 4th pick will be a really good player too.